You Can Expect to Hear the Phrase 'There's No Definitive Proof' a Lot Over the Next Few Days

So far, the best moment of physical comedy in the ongoing drama surrounding the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court came on Monday. All week, both Senator Susan Collins and Senator Lisa Murkowski have been stalked by massive numbers of reporters. (I came around a corner outside the Senate chamber on Tuesday and nearly took the entire Collins gaggle in the chops.) On Monday, Murkowski was jumped as she got off the subway that connects the Capitol to the various Senate office buildings. The unwieldy knot of people then proceeded onto an escalator, which promptly broke from the stress. Screams, I tell you. Comedy gold.

On Wednesday, before noon, Senator Dianne Feinstein accused Kavanaugh of having misled the Senate Judiciary Committee with regards to what a sieve he'd been during his days with Ken Starr's office, particularly on the matter of Starr's indecent investigation into the suicide of Vince Foster. Senator Jeff Merkley announced that he would be going to court to stop the confirmation process, citing unconstitutional interference into the process by the president*.

There was a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill supporting Kavanaugh's nomination, as well as Congressman Jim Jordan's campaign to be the next Speaker of an increasingly unlikely Republican House of Representatives. In short, the rally was held on behalf of one guy being accused of a pattern of sexual assault, and another guy who has been accused of a pattern of covering up sexual assault. One speaker at the rally made a Chappaquiddick joke, and people wonder whatever happened to the classics.

Mark WilsonGetty Images

And Michael Avenatti dropped his latest bunker-buster right into the middle of the proceedings. From CNBC:

[Julie] Swetnick, in an affidavit posted online by Avenatti, claims that Kavanaugh, as a high school student in Maryland in the early 1980s, with others spiked the drinks of girls at house parties with grain alcohol and/or drugs to "cause girls to lose inhibitions and their ability to say 'No.' " Swetnick, 55, said these efforts by Kavanaugh and his buddy Mark Judge were done so the girls "could then be 'gang raped' in a side room or bedroom by a 'train' of numerous boys."

"I have a firm recollection of seeing boys lined up outside rooms at many of these parties waiting for their 'turn' with a girl inside the room. These boys included Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh," Swetnick said. She also said in her affidavit sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee that in approximately 1982 "I became the victim of one of these 'gang' or 'train' rapes where Mark Judge and Brett Kavanaugh were present."

Now, Swetnick doesn't have definitive proof that Kavanaugh participated in these activities, which is a line you're going to be hearing a lot over the next two days. But, remember when the president* wanted to execute the Central Park Five? Remember the fable the police told about "wilding"? It sounds to me like there was actual "wilding" going on among the privileged white dudes of Georgetown Prep. "That isn't a Catholic school like you and I went to," said a savvy Massachusetts pol of my acquaintance. "We went to blue-collar Catholic schools. This was a school designed to produce Republicans."

Getty Images

As for Feinstein's charges, according to Politico, they stem from documents newly released from the National Archives relating to Kavanaugh's work for Starr.

She said that by directing officials to speak to reporters during the investigation of President Bill Clinton, Kavanaugh may have violated grand jury secrecy laws — even though he told her and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) he never broke those rules.

"According to a memo from the National Archives, Brett Kavanaugh instructed Hickman Ewing, a colleague and deputy independent counsel in the Starr investigation, to ‘call [Chris] Ruddy’ about matters before a grand jury, which would be illegal to disclose," Feinstein said in a statement to POLITICO. "I asked Judge Kavanaugh in questions for the record whether he had shared ‘information learned through grand jury proceedings.’ His answer, which says that he acted ‘consistent with the law,’ conflicts with the official memo from Mr. Ewing. Disclosing grand jury information is against the law and would be troubling for any lawyer, especially one applying for a promotion to the highest court in the country.”

And, because this is Brett Kavanaugh, who rapidly is being revealed as a substantial Freudian buffet, there is something sleazy and icky about this, too.

After being questioned by Kavanaugh in 1995 in front of a Washington grand jury re-investigating Foster's death, Knowlton complained that the young prosecutor asked him inappropriate questions suggesting Knowlton might have been in the park looking to have sex with another man. "Did the man in the park pass you a note?" Knowlton recalled Kavanaugh asking, later followed by an even more jarring question: "Did the man in the park touch your genitals?" Knowlton recounted his version of the questioning to Christopher Ruddy, then a reporter for the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review investigating and often feeding conspiracy theories that Foster was murdered. Ruddy is now the CEO of Newsmax and a confidant of President Donald Trump. According to records at the National Archives, a couple weeks after the grand jury appearance, Ruddy reached out to Kavanaugh and left a voicemail message saying he was "worried" about what Ruddy was about to report.

"I didn't ask him that," Kavanaugh insisted in a message to Ewing, per a memo Ewing wrote. "I did ask him about sexual advances by the other man in the park. [Fellow prosecutor] John Bates and I want you to call Ruddy — at least get him off the genitalia part. I am worried about that." Why Kavanaugh believed the wording of the question was so critical is unclear, but Feinstein said the pushback he set in motion violated grand jury secrecy.

Get Him Off The Genitalia Part: The Brett Kavanaugh Story, soon to be appearing at elegant bus stations and shabby newsstands near you.

Merkley's lawsuit, drafted with the help of the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights, is an interesting long shot. In it, Merkley is asking the federal district court in D.C. to enjoin the Senate from holding a confirmation vote on Kavanaugh until his entire paper trail can be examined. The suit contends that the White House violated the separation of powers by unconstitutionally interfering with the Senate's duty to advise and consent in three specific areas:

1) in blocking access to documents relating to Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary in the Bush White House;

2) in blocking access to 100,000 documents relating to Kavanaugh's service in the counsel's office in that same White House;

3) in allowing the thoroughly made-up designation of "committee confidential" to prevent senators from questioning Kavanaugh in certain areas. (The Machiavelli in the woodpile here is Bill Burck, the lawyer hired by the present White House to handle the documents from the previous one.) "Certainly," Merkley said, "nobody is saying that the president can't call up senators and make his case for his nominee, but this is a profound and unprecedented violation of the separation of powers."

It's an interesting problem in constitutional law, and worthy of debate in some quieter, saner forum than that which exists in Washington at the moment. It's almost impossible to imagine any federal court enjoining the Senate from taking a vote. (Merkley admitted that he couldn't cite a precedent for it, but argued, not unconvincingly, that we're in uncharted constitutional waters generally these days.) Meanwhile...lunch!

Charles P. PierceCharles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976.

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io

This commenting section is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page. You may be able to find more information on their web site.

A Part of Hearst Digital Media
Esquire participates in various affiliate marketing programs, which means we may get paid commissions on editorially chosen products purchased through our links to retailer sites.